Erb+v.+Iowa+State+Board

Eric Miller & Kristee Glace **Richard Arlan ERB, Appellant,** **v.** **IOWA STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, convened as the Board of Educational Examiners, Dr. James M. Walter, President, Appellee.** No. 55838. **Supreme Court of Iowa.** March 27, 1974. The complaint against Erb was made by Robert M. Johnson, a farmer whose wife Margaret taught home economics in the Nishna Valley School. Johnson told the board his goal was removal of Erb from the school and not revocation of his teaching certificate. He read an extensive statement in which he detailed his observations relating to an adulterous liaison between Erb and Johnson's wife which began and ended in spring 1970. Margaret Johnson planned to quit teaching and open a boutique in Red Oak. Her association with Erb began in early spring when he agreed to assist her with design of the store. They saw each other often. By May, Johnson became suspicious of Margaret's frequent late-night absences from home. He suspected Margaret and Erb were meeting secretly and engaging in illicit activity in the Johnson automobile. One night in May he hid in the trunk of the car. Margaret drove the car to school, worked there for some time, and later drove to a secluded area in the country where she met Erb. Margaret and Erb had sexual intercourse in the back seat of the car while Johnson remained hidden in the trunk. Johnson did not disclose his presence or his knowledge of the incident. ** Decision ** The board contends the fact Erb admitted adultery is sufficient in itself to establish his unfitness to teach. This assumes such conduct automatically and invariably makes a person unfit to teach. We are unwilling to make that assumption. It would vest the board with unfettered power to revoke the certificate of any teacher whose personal, private conduct incurred its disapproval regardless of its likely or actual effect upon his teaching. In his appeal, Erb contends that the board acted illegally in denying his right to cross-examine witnesses against him and limiting the number of his witnesses, in failing to make findings, and in revoking his teaching certificate without substantial evidence that he is not morally fit to teach. ** Implications ** This case demonstrated that a school board is able to revoke licenses when a teacher is not morally fit to teach but must allow the teacher to defend his or herself. In this case the board was outraged by Erb’s actions with another teacher but did not allow Erb to defend himself as due process. Another implication that teachers must deal with is that immoral actions outside of the school can also jeopardize their certificate to teach. ** Is morality the same for every person? And can it be judged by one group of people? **
 * Summary **

** Posted by: Joc'Lene Alston **

** Richard Arlan ERB, Appellant **

** V. **

** Iowa State Board of Pubic Instruction, Appellee **

** Background: **

Richard Arlan Erb was an art teacher at Nishna Valley Community School. He became involved in an extramarital affair with Margaret Johnson, a fellow colleague at the school. Margaret's husband, Robert M. Johnson filed a complaint against Erb. He hoped for Erb's removal from the school and a revocation of his teaching certificate. The board voted five to four in favor of revoking Erb's teaching certificate. Dring the trial, the board refused to allow Erb's attorney to cross-examine any witnesses in support of Mr. Erb's character and his fitness to teach. Finally, the trial court held that Erb's adulturous affair was sufficient enough to revoke his teaching certificate and annulled the writ. Erb appealed the decision and contended that the board acted illegally in dening his right to cross-examine witnesses, failed to make findings whether he was not morally fit to teach.

** Decision and Rational: **

The court ruled that Erb could have raised concern to the board about the cross-examining of witnesses. Since he did not do so, Erb failed to preserve any error on the part of the board. The court did find that the board failed to make findings of fact and therefore the board acted illegally. The court also found that the board used excessive power by revoking the certificate in relation to a teacher's personal and private conduct. The board used their personal moral views and cannot be relevant. There was no clear evidence that proved the finding, because evidence presented showed Erb to be a teacher of exceptional merit. The evidence also did not show that his affair effected his relationship with the school system. Erb showed remorse and the school system supports Erb and is willing to understand, forgive, and reconcile. The court held that the board acted illegally in revoking Erb's eaching certificate and that the trial court erred in annulling the writ of certiorari.

** Impact on Teaching: **

This decision is an improtant one. It shows that a teacher's moral failings should not be a deciding factor in the teacher's ability to perform their job effectively. Teachers should still be constantly aware that they are considered examples to young people.

** Question: **

** Should a teacher's personal failings or imperfections be a deciding factor in whether they are fit to teach? **